I'm not going to be able to relate to you on a base level here. I thought Bryce was fun. I still think Bryce is fun*. That he's not on the Nats kind of sucks, but I harbor no ill will to the Phillies so this doesn't mean the same to me as it does to you. So in lieu of that I'm not going to try to tell you how to react or how to feel. Anything right now is fine. You're venting. Anything in April that falls short of "I hope he gets injured" is fine. Fans aren't supposed to be rational.
But me, my automaton circuits are functioning just fine. Time for some analysis, first starting with what this isn't.
This isn't Bryce vs every other FA the Nats have signed.
Some people (like Mike O'Connor?) are trying to break down the analysis as if it's Bryce vs every free agent the Nats brought in. This is silly presupposing the Nats would have signed no one if Bryce stayed. I mean Hellickson and Adams were literally here with Bryce last year. And Bryce isn't the only guy who isn't on the team from last year and thus is part of the "gone" side of the equation. The measurement should be
Corbin, Suzuki, Rosenthal, Barraclough, Gomes, Dozier, Sanchez
vs
Bryce, Murphy, Gio, Roark, Kintzler, Madson, Wieters, Kelley (some can be addition by subtraction)
This is not about money balance (below would have cost more to keep than above cost to procure), it'a about team evaluation. The team is better off with what group? Personally, I think the latter is better, no doubt.
Of course this is a vacuum question. Along with the money, we also need to see how these guys fit into the team. Bryce is far better than "no Bryce" but Bryce is also presumably needed less because the Nats have OFs. Anyway - just don't do what O'Connor did as an evaluation is all I'm saying.
This isn't We don't need Bryce we have Juan Soto.
Soto may very well be a generational hitter, replacing Bryce, who when healthy was a generational hitter. He certainly put up numbers his rookie year that suggest that. The thing is 2019 isn't about Soto replacing Bryce in the lineup. Why? Because Soto was already in the lineup. For like 120 games. With Bryce.
The Nats are going to get more Soto next year but it's not that he steps in to replace Bryce. It'd be more accurate to say Eaton does (he only played 95 games) or Robles does (21). But regardless of how you put this together - where some combination of Eaton, Soto, Robles, replace some combination of MAT & Bryce & etc. from last year - the point I want to make is the Nats had Bryce and Soto together for 3/4 of last year. It wasn't enough. Soto can't just replicate last year in this equation and the Nats be fine. He needs to be better and/or Eaton needs to at least as good as he was for a full season and/or Robles needs to be better than MAT.
None of this is in itself outside the bounds of possibilities, but note you are asking for several things to fall into place and even if they are likely things, stack enough together and the odds of them all happening are slim. (this was my "watch out for the OF" point from last off-season which came true although Soto saved it from being THE massive problem that killed the team. Instead it was just a problem mainly early in the year)
Ok - but we know what the Nats are without Bryce as we have wrapped our heads around it for a while. Well at least in part. We know offensively they are a team with few holes, who might not be better without Bryce but have put together a 1-8 offense that makes you doubt they'll be much worse, if at all this year. So Top 5ish. We THINK they'll be better defensively because there has been a lot of talk about how bad the fancy stats had Bryce last year but guess what? Soto was almost as bad, as a rookie, playing exclusively corner OF. And while Robles is supposed to be great. MAT IS great. so let's hold off on the better D talk until we see if Robles can match MAT and if Soto can improve.
The question is more what are the Phillies with Bryce? Well here's the offensive changes from last year and their 2018 OPS+ (as best we can - guys like Hoskins and Kingery will move around but no need to have them in both replace and replaced positions)
Realmuto (131) for Alfaro (95)
McCutchen (118) for Santana (105)
Bryce (133) for Nick Williams (99)
Segura (112) for Hernandez (94) / Kingery (61)**
One can quibble that maybe Realmuto had a career year or Bryce could do much better, but on face value you are taking 4 very average bats and replacing them with two above average bats and two very good bats. If you assume Hoskins (125), Franco (106), and Odubel (94) remain the same that's a lineup that's just as deep as the Nats, meaning a Top 5ish squad with potential for more.
But is that enough? The Phillies had a pitching staff that was just as unimpressive as the batting order last year and their work so far is - sign David Roberston. Roberston is good, and I'd listen to anyone who wants to say the Phillies pen grades out better than the Nats*** but that still leaves the starting staff. That still leaves
Nola, old Arrieta, Pivetta, Velasquez, Eflin
vs
Max, Stras, Corbin, Sanchez
Nola is great. Max is better. Maybe age makes you consider that a push. Fine. Stras is better than Arrieta. Corbin is leaps and bounds better than Pivetta.
There's no comparison here. Nats starting staff is better and gives the Nats the edge still, even with Bryce switching sides.
There are certainly paths to the Phillies beating the Nats this season. There's not more than a few games difference now between the two and injuries and surprise performances can easily make those things up (and probably should be expected to) but today looking at the teams - Bryce makes Philly a division threat and a likely playoff team in my mind, but he doesn't make them an NL East favorite.
*Some people have tried to play Bryce up as one of those types that you love on your team but hate everywhere else. I think that's mostly projecting. Bryce is a showboat yes, but he's never been a jerk. To put it in NY Giants terms - he's Odell Beckham, not Jeremy Shockey. You can certainly hate him, but it's not because he's THAT guy.
** Hernandez is pencilled in as the starter at 2nd but is both hurt and you KNOW they want Kingery to win that position. Of course if he wins it he's likely to be much better than a 61 OPS+
***First one to average wins!
Sanchez, not Vasquez.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, very good post!
The real story to me is how badly Boras misjudged the market. I have to think that he could have easily gotten 13 years and 330M from the Nats in 2017. Easily. Also, with regards to the Nats offer, what would they have done had Boras come back on their offer and said, 'Okay, you offered 10 and 300, we'll take 13 and 390.' Even if the Nats countered some AND deferred money, Harper would've made considerably more.
ReplyDeleteI get what you're saying about it not being Harper vs. a specific player, but I just don't see how they could afford Harper and Rendon, so to me, it's always been one vs. the other. Rendon is older, but he is much, much, much more consistent, plays way better defense and I think overall is the better player. So maybe it's wishful thinking, but so long as they re-sign Rendon, I'm happy that Harper is gone. I also don't think they would've signed Corbin if they had signed Harper. I think they can go above the luxury tax for a year or maybe two, but it gets onerous in the third year and beyond.
As I said before, I won't boo Bryce and definitely do not wish any personal ill. I still have fond memories of his Nats days, including being at the park when he:
ReplyDelete1) Hit three homers in the first three ABs against Tom Koehler, all on the second pitch of the at-bat!
2) Hit a game-tying homer against Bud Norris of the Cardinals in the bottom of the ninth, then hit a walk-off Sac Fly in extra innings to win it. That's the last game I ever went to with Bryce in a Nats uniform.
It stinks that he's with the Phillies, but it's time to move on and focus on the Nats. Hope they win the division this year!
There's no getting around that it stinks that Bryce went to the Phillies. I am happy with the current team and veery pleased with the front office's moves this offseason.It still stinks they weren't able to get Bryce on a similar deal to what the Phillies offered... and also get Corbin and extend Rendon. Hey, it's not my money!
ReplyDeleteI've got some great memories of watching Bryce play, especially in 2012 and 2015. I harbor no ill will for his leaving, and any other team, I'd cheer him on his first return to Nats Park.
ReplyDeleteBut it's the Phillies. And the Phillies are the worst.
@Robot Yeah, if he'd have gone literally anywhere else I would be happy for him, but as it stands he went to Philthadelphia. Jokes on him though, he has to live there for 5-6 months out of the year for the next 13 years.
ReplyDeleteMy antagonism rankings (most hated to least) in the NL East has generally gone Braves, Mets, Phillies in recent years, because the Phillies really haven't been relevant, while the Braves and Mets each had decent runs where they pushed/beat the Nats in the Bryce competitive window.
ReplyDeleteMy updated antagonism rankings, independent of which teams actually end up good are Lerners, Phillies, and it stops there. Maybe in a few months I'll cool off and the standings will dictate that I root harder against the Braves or Mets.
For now, I'm wallowing in hatred toward those owners who broke the relationship with Bryce and weren't willing to offer an even slightly reasonable contract.
Hard for me to explain, and this is just on the fan side of things, but I had a hard time rooting for Harper. And now that he's off the team, even playing for the Philthies, I could see myself being more neutral, maybe even being curious about him as a fan. It's so much easier for me to be a fan of Scherzer, Soto, Eaton and Rendon (and sadly, definitely Murphy).
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen it written straight up, but I think, like Lumley said above, that the Nats would have signed Harper for something like the Phillies deal had they been given the option at any time before the end of the season last year. Obviously, they couldn't wait for Bryce to complete his price discovery and still control their own offseason. Bryce bought a price discovery lottery ticket and basically it came up nil and he received his consensus mareket value (from a team he didn't want to play on).
So, the Nats roster construction, wasn't really a question of paying Harper. For him to forego price discovery, they would have to go to something like $350/10 or more. And that clearly wouldn't have made sense.
I think we're showing our "homer-ism" if we say that the Bryce could have gotten the Nats to pay 13/330 in 2017, or that we should have traded him at the deadline last year and then tried to pick him up in FA (I was one of these people), or that the Lerners should have ponied up 3 more years and $30 million more. What if Bryce just flat-out did not want to return to DC? Is that possible? A guy like him, with the "face of baseball" title, is not going to sign an extension. He wants new experiences and a bigger stage. Just because we have a good team in DC and it's what he's familiar with doesn't give us any leverage over any one else when it comes to someone like Bryce Harper. Now, if we offered $400M, maybe.
ReplyDeleteStrasburg signed an extension. Rendon sounds like he's open to it. Harper didn't even look back. One of these personalities is not like the other. And to be clear, this is not a knock on Bryce. Bon voyage...
Exactly. Harper and Boras have been trying to get to that 325 deal since January. They always wanted years, that didn't change, but I suspect they they COULD have negotiated a 330m deal with the Nats by November. Perhaps that would have just made Boras think he could still get more by 2/28, I'm guessing it would mean that. If you've followed this team since the beginning, you can't be surprised about them no being prepared to pay double tax, lose draft positions and compensation, etc. They don't act like that, and there's a good argument to be made that improving the bullpen and fifth starter with that extra money would make more sense this year. It's not really an either/or once you've spend that money, they don't have it anymore without trading Strasburg or something similar. If and when Rendon doesn't re-sign, they'll be looking to get a good 200 million team out there again, but it will look different again.
ReplyDeleteMy only problem is that Harper is likely a Hall of Famer. If he continues like the first half of last year maybe not. Somone brought up Justin Upton and that is a possible comparable for the non-Hall of Fame route. However, it is more likely that Harper will bounce back like he did in the second half of last year. I think it shows a real problem of self-awareness with the owners and Mike Rizzo that the Nats have likely run a future Hall of Famer out of town without really even trying to keep him. "Oh we don't need Bryce" is how they responded. Now Harper is likely going into the Hall of Fame with a Phillies hat on. That hurts. I'm frustrated with the Nats because for years when the Nats were awful the Lerner family was all about the Plan. Going with homegrown stars and keeping them around and not relying on free agents. Except they don't keep their homegrown stars. The only prominent Nats they have kept to this point are Zimmerman (who I'm sorry is king of rationalizing failure and is part of the problem imo) and Strasburg. Not exactly the Plan as I remember it being explained. At the end of the day, Harper is making $7 million dollars more than Zimmerman this year (or avg salary for an established BP arm) and the Nats response is - yeah we don't want him on our team.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the Hall of Fame matter to you? I just want a winning team. The Nats offered a net present value of around $240M if rumors are correct. Bryce signed for NPV of $275M (both based on 2.5% inflation) with three extra years of work. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable effort by the Nats to retain Harper.
ReplyDelete@billyhacker. The reason it was unreasonable is because they asked Bryce to sign the deal before the free agency period even started. Then when he said no as a response they took the deal off the table. I think if the Nats at the end of free agency when Bryce knew all the options, the Dodgers (offered 45 AAV, 4/180, opt out after 2 yrs at age 28, i would’ve taken this deal), the Phillies at 13/330, and giants 10/310, had offered that exact deal 10/300, it’s possible Bryce would’ve taken it instead of Phillies. Probably not with the deferrals, but without yeah he might. THAT would have been reasonable ask by Nats. But no big free agent in the history of any sport I can think of has signed a deal (an extension) a month before his free agency starts. That just SCREAMS we’re doing this to say we did this, not because were trying to retain him.
ReplyDelete@Harper. My main opinion right now is the Phillies bullpen if you look at it vs the Nats is objectively superior, taking into account health, ERA. everything. They have Neris. Dominguez, and Robertson in back end. We have 3 guys who either sucked last year or are huge health risks. I would give Phillies the SLIGHT edge in offense over Nats lineup. But it’s close. And the Nats a clear edge in rotation.
Then with Rendon, I don’t understand why everybody is saying it’s a choice between signing one or the other. No it’s not. It’s a choice between signing Bryce and the possibility of signing Rendon. Rendon may well want to test the market. Hell, it would be super unusual if he didn’t, now that he’s a year out and will now be the premier third baseman by a mile with Arenado off the board. Then the “if we sign Bryce we won’t have the money to sign Soto in 6 years” is literally laugh out loud as a strategy. Just as “don’t sign Bryce to save money to use it on Keuchel and Kimbrel” makes no sense. Whenever the team is considering signing a free agent, assume that’s the one free agent that is possible...because assuming owners will spend money on alternatives is utterly unsound. Maybe Rendon leaves and the Lerners say “ we’re excited about kieboom at third base and after a 3 WAR year we’re spending money to retain dozier at second while we wait for Garcia to replace him.” Then we look up and the Nats offense is not remotely competitive with the rest of the division. We’re not playing fantasy baseball. We can’t just pick pieces on a board. If we WERE, I would plug in kimbrel at closer and Keuchel as no 4 starter and extend rendon instead of signing Bryce.....but we’re not. We’re debating whether it’s a good idea for ownership to say “no thank you” to a superstar. (“He’s not a superstar!” Folks say). Ok he just broke the all time contract record, has the same career wRC+ as a free agent as ARod did as a free agent (140, higher than Griffey Jr’s career wRC+), is the odds on NL MVP favorite next year, and has an entire city in a frenzy. Juan Soto is incredibly incredibly exciting. He also was less valuable than Harper as a 19 year old and never had Harper’s running or defensive ability. Maybe Soto shows he has 10 WAR upside and becomes as good as Bryce has shown he is. Acting like that’s a guarantee after 120 games is just foolish.
ReplyDeleteRe “odds on favorite” I’m referring to Vegas odds of MVP, which also has made Philadelphia go from 12:1 to 6:1 to make WS, which is second most likely in NL to Dodgers. is rendon a more consistent hitter? Recently, yes he is. But rendon doesn’t get those odds/affect team odds like that because a “good rendon” season doesn’t literally end the NL East and MVP race. Bryce Harper turning it on probably sews up the division and MVP. No other player in the NL has that upside, which is very relevant.
DeleteAnyway, regarding debating Harper, that’s it for me! I’m emotionally going to move on and hope for the best from this Nats team. Presently I am focused on the fact that the bullpen is simply inadequate by any metric. Why? Currently when we’re playing the Phillies and Bryce Harper comes up in the 8th inning in a jam, our lefty specialist is Sammy Solis. Nothing else to say there!
ReplyDeleteThe big thing for me is the $25M per year. If he had gone to the Phillies for $35 or $40M per, you could say it was about the money. If he had gone to LA, NYC, CHI, even SF, you could say it was about the market. But why on earth wouldn't the Nats want to pay $25M per to keep their own star? That's barely more than he made last season! And by 2032, it'll probably be what #3 starters are getting.
ReplyDeleteForgot to add -- the NL getting the DH in the near future seems likely, and enhances the value of Bryce
ReplyDeleteThe story quoted on MLB trade rumors about Bryce not wanting opt outs raises interesting questions. It could just be what Philly demanded in order to give him the 330. The idea that he only wants to be on one team for the rest of his career for legacy purposes makes me wonder if he hoped the Nats would re-enter negotiations.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder if he has an injury or degenerative concern and didn’t want to bet on himself.
@Lou
ReplyDeleteIt is, or nearly enough, what the Nats are paying their 3rd starter right now.
Bx - seems like we disagree on everything. Vegas odds are based on the gullibility of people who actually believe that one player can make a team great, and are willing to bet hard earned money. This isn't basketball where that certainly happens. Bryce's time in DC proves that one player can't do it, just like Trout in LA (certainly a much superior player to Harper). Rendon is not the lightning rod Harper is...Harper has been selected to the All-star game at times when he clearly hasn't performed well enough to be on the field. harper has fame...I'll give him that. But again...one great year. And the past three seasons Rendon has been the better player and more valuable to the Nats. You give Harper as the example of great upside potential, like that hasn't happened in baseball...ever. Remember Justin Upton? That's who Harper brings to mind. Based on rookie seasons, Soto has superior upside to Harper. But they have to play for us to know.
ReplyDeleteI think some people must've seen a different Bryce Harper than I've seen the last 6 years. What I've seen is an erratic star who for whatever reason is injury prone and whose defense is quickly declining. Is he sometimes the best hitter in baseball? Yes. Does he also disappear for months at a time? Yes. Who knows Harper better than the Nats talent evaluators? Anyone? Do the Nats have good talent evaluators when it comes to position players? Judging by their team you'd have to say so. Did any one of the other 29 teams want to give Harper $300M? Only the Giants and Phillies and both teams are concerned with selling tickets. Given that, why not give them the benefit of the doubt? Rizzo took a terrible franchise and turned it into a winner. The Lerners have exceeded the luxury tax threshold two years in a row and yet people still act like there are fools running this team? Could they be wrong? Sure, they could be, but judging by their track record it's much more likely that they're right and the Philthies are wrong.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed this article by Ben Lindbergh.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.theringer.com/mlb/2019/2/28/18245515/bryce-harper-free-agent-signing-philadelphia-phillies-nl-east-race
I'm excited about 2019. We should all be so excited about this season. We haven't had anything like this level of anticipation since baseball returned to DC.
Chin up everyone. It's going to be a fun year in our division.
Again... maybe Bryce just wanted to play somewhere else? Maybe we would have to blow every other offer completely out of the water for him to stay? Should we have done that? I'm guilty of this too at times, but just because someone is affordable and goes somewhere else, that doesn't mean its fault of Rizzo or ownership for not making it happen. The player has a choice here. Strasburg, a Boras client, chose to stay before he hit FA. Rendon, a Boras client, has said that the agent works for him, not the other way around. Everyone acting like the player just follows the higher offer all the time, so its the Nats fault. That is sometimes true, but in this case we did not, and all indications show that Bryce wanted to move on, regardless of what we offered.
ReplyDeleteWhat's the story here? "We could have gotten him for--" No... we couldn't have. End of story lol. We're the Nats for God's sake.
JWLumley-
ReplyDelete"Who knows Harper better than the Nats talent evaluators?"
Your premise is assuming the truth of your conclusion instead of supporting it. (Formal logicians call it "begging the question.")
Let's look at it another way: If, as you imply, the Nats' talent evaluators know Harper better than anyone, why did they like his talent for 7 years but apparently no longer do? Did they misjudge his talent? Or are they such astute evaluators that they know with absolute precision that Harper's talent expired at the conclusion of the 2018 season?
Baseball is replete with examples of teams whose "talent evaluators" blunder. From Babe Ruth to Frank Robinson; from Pedro Martinez (when he was a Dodger) to Nolan Ryan (when he was Met); from Schilling to Bagwell to Varitek to Ozzie Smith and so on and so on. "Talent evaluators" from good teams and bad teams alike can sh*t in their shoes.
They know for certain that his talent seems to have peaked in 2015. They know that his defensive play is approaching Jose Canseco levels and that he did not live up to a $22 million contract in 2018. That's what they know. This isn't begging the question, it's what happened on the field. You know...reality.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous 1:55 PM
ReplyDeleteThen the evaluators should have been fired for allowing the organization to squander money on Harper for the last three years.
The problem and the unknowable is that Mike Rizzo might have told the Lerner family that Bryce Harper is a sure bet Hall of Famer that should be brought back at any price and the Lerner family may have decided nope. We will never know that.
ReplyDeleteMost worrisome of all is that if the Lerner family thought their offer was a good one. Not many people are going to be ok deferring $100 million and being paid until they are 60.
The idea that Harper peaked in 2015 is ludicrous. He was one wet first base in 2017 from winning two MVP's in 3 years. He hit .300/.434/.972. That is better than everyone but Anthony Rendon.
I agree with the article by David Aldridge on the Athletic. It is time for the Nats to put up or shut up. They've run a future Hall of Famer out of town claiming they don't need him. That's fine if they win the division and advance past the NLDS. Anything less at this point is a failure.
That just makes no sense...How many ballplayers in the league did not live up to their contracts in 2018? Many! How many outperformed their contracts? Many. That's just baseball. You make your best guess and live with the results. Harper was not special...he's a player like many others in the league. They had him for 7 years. He outperformed for 3. The upside was tantalizing. No different from many other players.
ReplyDelete@Jay
ReplyDeleteActually they've now run two potential future HOFers out of town claiming they don't need them. Letting Dusty Baker go has already hurt and will continue to hurt the Nationals more than saying bye bye to Bryce. I remain convinced the looming free agency and the lack of negotiation between Boras and the Lerners played with Bryce's head and attitude last season. Dusty Baker had the moxie and commanded the kind of respect necessary to keep Bryce focused on the game and motivated to play.
The fact that Davey Martinez allowed Bryce Harper to dog it last season is proof enough to me that he is a spineless wuss and a loser. All the talk about our talented players and wonderful rotation won't matter because I don't think Martinez can manage his way through a department store aisle. BUT......he gets every opportunity to prove me wrong. I'm open to persuasion.
Harper
ReplyDeleteI said you were dead wrong to think Bryce would get 330 for ten but we would discuss it when the deal was done. 330 for 13 is 25% below what you predicted. Rather than being a soulless automaton, your seemed more like an emotional fan panting over Bryce. Your plea for the Yankees to sign Bryce was priceless.
Finally, your discussion of baseball economics revealed how little you really understand about the topic. The give away was you didn't even use commonly used economic terms to discuss valuation metrics. As I commented at the time "a bunch of guys commenting on economics who don't understand economics".
Let's hope you go back to baseball stats which you do understand and stop pretending to know are areas that are clearly outside your field of expertise. You run an open forum and sometimes you don't know the background of your audience.
You can increase your knowledge if you wish. The Braves are part of Liberty Media which is a publicly traded company. Symbol LSXMA. They just issued their fourth quarter report. You never know what you might learn from reading it.
Folks,
ReplyDeleteLet the next two or three seasons and we will know who is right about Harper. No one on either side of the debate is going to convince anyone on the other side to change his/her opinion.
Or you can just continue to debate the same points ad infinitum.
All -
ReplyDeleteLet's agree that with "Rendon or Bryce" there really isn't a loser if you get one (in injury free theory) but now they have boxed themselves into a corner... maybe. I mean they've gotten around it before and I'm not convinced letting Rendon walk too would do them in either.
JWL - I'm not as sure as you the Nats were willing to go that high... maybe. I think they'd have to think that was the floor (and of course defer to the future where we all have jetpacks) but you might be right - if they signed him RIGHT after 2017. Even with all our talk of 400+ million I think the JD Martinez stuff might have made the Nats hold off thinking a change was coming. It's all speculation though
billyhacker - I don't think you are alone. I've always felt while Bryce was loved, it wasn't universal and there were a non insignificant percentage that never quite warmed to him. Maybe it was "best ever" expectations not met, or his brand-first public persona, or just a connection with this entire "not quite there" window. I also think he got a lot of the Strasburg dislike once Strasburg was able to fade into the background when Max came in and became historically great.
OlePBN - BUT IT'S THE CAPITOL! (I think the city is fine but I can buy the Nationals themselves lacked something that Bryce was looking for with their limited history and still growing fanbase)
Jay - They haven't signed those homegrown stars but they also have kept winning. I'm not going to make the "if ZNN or Desmond stayed it wouldn't have worked out" because who knows really? Maybe it does create some sort of emotional connection issue but it's hard to argue that results wise how they've worked has a failure. (has it been a success? Well that's up to how you judge that)
Anon @ 1:34 - I think the better talent evaluator argument is if they were clear he wasn't worth it why didn't they trade him late last year? (and if one says - well maybe they thought they could still make a run at the playoffs - that is also an indictment of the talent evaluators because it wasn't close) It's a tough job.
Anon @ 1:55 - welllll technically he probably WAS worth 22 million last year. 34 homers, 34 doubles, and a .393 OBP will do that even with terrible d.
ssln - 23%! I'm fine saying that 330/13 isn't close to 330/10, but I also recall someone in comments poo-pooing my suggestion the Nats offer wasn't really 10/300 (It wasn't!) and saying no one was going to offer anything close to 10 years or 300 mill (they did!) so we both made guesses that were wrong because hey, we're guessing! I think I was closer in spirit to what Bryce ended up with but we can disagree.
As for the economics stuff, I don't know what to tell you. I'm going to speculate occasionally and while I do have an understanding of economics you sound like you probably know better. Feel free to correct me. Whatever makes you happy. This should all be fun, even when we're complaining about something or other. Well maybe not the playoff losses.
ssln I work in economics and will remind you that economic consensus is rare on most topics, even when everyone uses the same esoteric vocabulary. Also, "Go read a corporate quarterly report to learn something" is one of the weirdest flexes I've ever seen in these comments.
ReplyDeletessin- don't you think you are a bit too serious for baseball blog???
ReplyDeleteAlso... in case you didn't notice, this is Harper's blog and he can write about whatever he chooses. You can choose not to read it if you think it is not accurate, entertaining, or whatever. To attack him, or anyone else on here, for expressing an opinion seems awful childish.
ReplyDeleteChas R - ssln just fapped to your comment. Don't feed the animals.
ReplyDeleteJosh
ReplyDeleteYou have to be part of the conversation to understand the comment. Harper was making the point that the owners had seen the value of teams skyrocket into the billions so players like Harper should get something like 10/330 or more.
My response was simply that he didn't understand that those values were driven by FCF numbers and a golden age of of ESPN contracts and regional cable contracts and that those actors were not likely to be repeated in the futures. For instance, ESPN is already saying the next contract with baseball and all sports for that matter will be less because of declining sub numbers and audiences. That will put a cap on how high values of franchises can go. Harper disagreed with me.
Liberty Media is a publicly traded company and Greg Maffei had some interesting things to sat about the Braves in the the future. You can read the CC minutes and the 10-K which is now on line.
You didn't get the context of the reply because you didn't understand the conversation that led up to the remark. Harper understood it because he replied to it so in this case you were an economic "free rider" who didn't understand the message.
I watched everyone have an opinion on the economics of baseball but no one ever mentioned the term FCF which led me to question what people actually know. As far as FCF and its importance, we see that played out with the nats all the time. The Learners are real estate people so they deal in deferred payments for salaries which are dictated by the concept of FCF. You are in the economics field so I don't have to explain the concept to you.
If my comments are too intense or deep for a baseball blog, then simple ignore them.
I only have one request which is that when Bryce is killing it and is a great player for our rival, beating our brains in, for years to come, the folks who were applauding his departure, saying he is becoming a “Jose Canseco” level bad defender (despite losing zero speed and multiple articles written by analysts noting his positioning was terrible last year) and who are determined to argue that he’s not very good...a dude who has a .900 career OPS and 140 wRC+ from ages 19-25.... admit they were full of crap. Bryce Harper isn’t a perfect player. He’s inconsistent. But he’s inconsistent...as in...fluctuates between best player in the league (2015 and 2017) and “guy who has a near .400 OBP with power who gets hurt sometimes.” I have no problem with people who say here are the great, historic things about Harper as a player, but here are the concerning things. Because that’s honest analysis. What’s annoying is when folks cherry-pick only the worst stats and years and then make believe the years and stats that are “only a handful of people in the history of baseball have done this” don’t exist. It’s just annoying to debate that perspective. Objectively Bryce Harper is a great player and generational talent. He’s proven it. If you believe in the WAR dollar evaluations, it’s also objectively true he’s worth the money as a projection. Nobody can tell the future. But I root for players as well as teams (the Nats). And it’s going to suck to not root for Bryce Harper in the same way. It’s going to especially suck to have to face him and potentially watch him (and trout if trout goes there) go back to stomping all over the Nats and do what the Nats couldn’t and advance in the playoffs etc. that will be terrible. Is it possible the Nats find a way to triumph with the new post-Bryce team? Sure. I don’t love their chances though....both the Phillies and the Braves are set up much better over the next 5+ years with money (Phils) or talent (Braves pipeline of cheap players from farm.)
ReplyDelete@Harper. Here’s a topic for you. I’m sick of watching Rizzo and company be the only FO in baseball that is unaware that having an excellent bullpen is the way you win in 2015-onward. Do you know how much talent we’ve traded away mid season due to Rizzo-designed crap bullpens that need to be fixed? Jesus Luzardo, Blake Treinen, Felipe Vazquez, Nick Pivetta....at some point you have to develop relief pitchers. We haven’t developed and retained a decent relief pitcher in like 7 years. It’s unbelievable. What is going on? I really believe that the Nats will never advance anywhere meaningful until they make whatever adjustment in their development/farm/team they need to in order to develop relievers. Having to buy or trade for every arm in your pen ends up being incredibly expensive in talent and money.
what's done is done. i do think ultimately the Nats could have handled it better. if they were going after Bryce? get below the lux tax #. if not? trade him last year when they had a chance and get some value for him other than some later comp pick. ultimately, i think his exit was mishandled. and i'm a big fan of Mike Rizzo. i have a feeling there was a Lerner hand or two in this that ended up causing the possible treading water until the current carries you over the waterfall situation.
ReplyDelete100% agree Cardinal Ximinez, and yes, what's done is done.
ReplyDeleteHave to admit, his slip yesterday of "bring a title back to DC" does ease the pain a little. That was priceless.
I don't know what this is worth, but my excitement for this season has a training camp feel. A sort of "yeah can't wait to see what we have." Reminds me of those crummy years when they first came to town, when we looked forward to September to watch our prospects get a crack at the Show. I think it's because we don't have one, singular, face-of-the-franchise type of player that transcends the sport like Bryce did. For all his faults and positive qualities, he definitely accomplished that. Scherzer? I guess, but he's a pitcher and can't do it the same way a position player can. We have a lot of even-keeled guys no assumed-leader on this team. And to be honest, that might be a good thing. Someone might rise up and lead this team in a different way than it has been led the last 7 years. I do look forward to that.
@Bx
ReplyDeleteThe Treinen trade is a good trade for both sides. Your point is well taken, but that specific example I don't think supports it. We get 4 years of Doolittle and they get 4 years of Treinen. The Nats should end up paying less for Doolittle in the end, too, than the A's will pay Treinen.
@sirc. If that was the trade i would agree.....but That’s not what makes the trade bad. We also dealt Lazardo, who is projected to be one of the 3 or 4 best pitching prospects in baseball and a possible lefty ace who throws 95-96. Obviously we don’t know yet how good he will be. But if he’s good then the trade is very bad.
DeleteSpeaking of bullpens, what does everyone think of the mounting Kimbrel-to-Nats rumors? I find it interesting that we'd be willing to bust the 50%-plus-draft-picks tax level for a high-profile closer on the downswing. The significant point is that adding Kimbrel (who's probably the most cemented "I pitch the ninth and only the ninth" guy in the league) makes the bullpen better but not at closer. Doolittle is a better pitcher than Kimbrel is, but Kimbrel (as long as he's roughly "2018 regular season" Kimbrel and not "2018 playoffs please-don't-explode-let's-let-Sale-close-this-game-instead" Kimbrel) frees up Doolittle to be the left-handed set-up ace that we desperately lacked. It basically makes the pen the '16-'17 Indians, with Kimbrel playing the role of Cody Allen and Doolittle the part of Andrew Miller (and Rosenthal as Bryan Shaw, if we want to run the metaphor into the ground).
ReplyDelete(And honestly, if you're going to kill that tax threshold anyway, might as well go slap the money on the table and resign Rendon now for something like 6/$200M.)
While I was confident that the Nats had some deferred money in their offer, I was skeptical that it was $100 million to be paid until Harper was 60. That is an enormous number over decades and inconsistent with how the Nats treat players. SOmething about it was off, and it had the earmarks of a Boras disinformation campaign -- it's only basis was two anonymous sources with "knowledge," no further background provided. Svrluga is a good report so I am sure these surcess exist. I am growingly increasingly convinced that he story was planted by Boras.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the truth is the Nats offer had a net present value of $284 million, about the same as Philly. Loverro is a pretty good reporter too:
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/3/bryce-harper-and-scott-boras-twist-narrative/
That press conference was a disaster, starting with the "bring a title to DC" comment. Boras and Harper disparaged the Nats and Nats fans as driving him out of town since he was drafted (nice -- he actually cited speculation about preparing for his free agency as a reason to leave the Nats). The Nats have been gracious through the whole process, including Rizzo wishing him well after the signing. Graciousness was not returned.
I was not that fired up about him leaving. The Nats prepared for the season and Harper took the highest dollar. Okay. Why they felt the need to disparage the Nats and Nats fan is a mystery, but maybe they are trying too hard to convince themselves they made the right call.
He will turn on Philly someday as well. That is who Harper and Boras are. Good riddance.
cronus - I'm trying to find where Lovey got his 180 figure. Seen it tossed out in a couple tweets but no source. Of course it's a nonsense figure off the top, even if 100 million is deferred. His figure of $284 though seems dubious. First off - only one source. 2nd it's Nightengale who has earned a reputation for being... well wrong, a fair amount. 3rd, even Lovey can't get his sources (presumably on the team) to verify it is that - just that it's close. My guess from reading all this is that the team has a high end valuation of 250-260 and Boras has a low end of 220-230, based on whatever numbers they want to fiddle with.
ReplyDeleteI agree Bx - but had we won the WS in 2017 after dealing Luzardo/Treinen for Madson and Doolittle, would it still be a bad trade? A lot of the mid-season deals where prospects get dealt for an immediate need is in an effort to win it all THAT year.
ReplyDeleteAnd moreover, the only reason we had to make the trade to shore up the bullpen is that Treinen--the very same Treinen that people are handwringing over losing now that he got good with the A's--was a dumpster fire for the Nats that year, and Koda Glover, Plan B after Treinen's failure, got injured. Basically, Luzardo was the premium the Nats had to pay the A's to get proven, quality MLB players (and Doolittle has been awesome for us, and Madson was extremely good himself during 2017) in exchange for the opportunity to try and fix Treinen mentally or mechanically.
ReplyDelete